WebActivate programme

anny_ap wrote: »

Hi Guys,
I personally think this course is an absolute disaster. I regret I ever made a decision to start it.

Then why don't you quit it? I don't mean that in a rude way it's just so many have quit the Dublin course already. It was not for them I guess or other things got in the way, so why continue it?

I don't get this course bashing. Yeah sure it has flaws. Biggest gripe is that it can be hard to follow the videos as they are so long (On average 30 minutes) and information goes over your head. But step back people! This is a free course.

I think the keyword here is perspective. I've seen web design courses going for €5,000 euro and hey, they didnt have no free laptop or smart phone let alone being free!!

Im on the fence with this one. I have never done anything like this course so all the material is new to me. Maybe being caught up with that has shielded me from seeing other issues within the course.

My biggest gripe is the videos. They can be so long and hard to follow sometimes, particularly if you are trying to do the class on computer at same time. Much prefer when lecturers are live. And in my experience they have been approachable.

I don't think I will get straight into a job from this but it is a stepping stone for me.

Each to their own opinions and it shouldn't matter what background or existing experience anybody has or whether a person has left the course or intends to continue with it that's their own business. However, if students have identified that the course isn't running how it should and this needs to be highlighted then it takes guts to express it!

Compare how DSA are functioning to any other learning institution or indeed compare Webactivate to the standard definition of how an academic course should be administered based upon funding amounts, staff & institutional capabilities it is very evident that there is a huge shortfall in what there is potential to offer and what is actually being offered with this course.

Why should this company receive funding for a scheme that could be such an asset for learning but are in actual fact getting away with displaying a lack of respect for the system and the students participating. The sheer number of posts on online forums highlighting this is proof enough that there is a major problem.

Here is a run-down of what actually happens on the Webactivate course as witnessed by actual students;

a) What DSA advertize in bold print on their website and on the Springboard Website, online ads etc. is not what is provided when actually participating in the course

b) There are guidelines for entry to the course that are very obviously flouted in order to boost the number of students they sign-up for the course

c) Social Welfare have told a significant number of students they were eligible and then recanted this at will once they had been through a long process of aptitude tests etc.

d) Social Welfare have also told a number of people that they have no knowledge of said course even though they encourage people to apply i.e. the system is fragmented, non-cohesive and obstructive at best. Also the work experience component is listed in the course structure and no payment is received by the students, however social welfare offices in all regions have indiscriminately cut students payments citing "work experience" as the reason.

e) From day 1 students are rounded up and given very public assertions about the high-quality of the course and the wide range of opportunities available upon completion. Designated schedules & core structural elements outlined for the course are changed/omitted or blatantly miscommunicated at will. These are changed for sheer convenience to management with no due notice or regard for students, commute times, distances etc.

f) The lectures are for the most part videos filmed in 2010 and rolled out in centres across Ireland, very advantageous if you wish to pay a lecturer only one year and then add extra course centres and increase student no.s without DSA incurring a proportional cost for doing so. Other institutions provide an interactive lecture whereby students have their lecturer in the room with them or in the building should they need assistance with anything which all students inevitably do. The lecture is then made available online for further reference (or public consumption in some cases). The argument that it would be impossible to have the funds to administer the course the standard way is defunct, if it is by design distance learning then classify it as distance learning.

g) The course admits people with no experience in programming and people with plenty, however the lectures are in no way tailored to reflect this. Lectures, practicals and activities are more redolent of pushing students through no matter what rather than illustrating any thought or design in how a course with significant no's of students from a wide variety of backgrounds should actually be administered to ensure the learning environment is as efficient and nurturing as it could be.

h)The internal information system i.e. Moodle is openly touted to be a vehicle by which a "student with diverse backgrounds and skills can share knowledge and boost each others' learning" is a design mess. Students must use it to access vital information about scheduling. The irony being that they have to root through vast amounts of links and useless info to access this information.
What it has become is a forum through which students (justifiably) vent their frustrations but end up slagging each other off over whether the course is run properly or not.

I) Formal student complaints are met with sheer belligerance from management who readily practice fob-offs & lies and claim complaints are in low numbers or in isolation and that said complainant is misguided in their thinking. One common excuse that is used is that the person in charge has changed or the person who fields the complaint is unsure of who is ultimately culpable for course failings or in instigation constructive change. They put more energy into misleading students and dealing with the resulting fallout, than just delivering a quality course. This basically serves to strip any confidence a student may initially have in management and administration and deter students from attempting any sort of constructive dialogue with the course provider.

J) Students complete web-design tasks for companies an Eircom agent has enlisted for a "free" website and this is supposed to be the practical component for project management, web programming etc. What actually occurs is that the client hasn't been briefed properly, the Eircom system touted as being a quick-design tailored site for generating websites has intentional flaws..the goal being that the client can pay for Eircom technical staff to 'upgrade' their website.

k) Student dropout numbers are unnaturally high, also they are consistent as the months pass. This speaks volumes in itself. Management attempted at the beginning to insinuate that this was due individual students failings at longevity or committing or that they plainly misinterpreted the failings of the course. Responsibility for maintaining structure in day-to-day activities and project groups is pushed onto the students and masking the lack of any discerning structural academic design. Problems that occur due to the failings of the course design are blamed on students being apathetic or unwilling to participate when it is very obvious there are many talented and enthusiastic students only too willing to put 100% in. The inherent failings of the course lump an extra layer of tension and stress onto students that needn't be present at all.

Any one of these points could be taken in isolation and explained away but when every component of a course is systematically and consistently being revealed to have problems on a wide scale, it's very obvious what the problem is and it definitely does not lie with the students and their perceptions in this case

Maria O K wrote: »

Each to their own opinions and it shouldn't matter what background or existing experience anybody has or whether a person has left the course or intends to continue with it that's their own business. However, if students have identified that the course isn't running how it should and this needs to be highlighted then it takes guts to express it!

Compare how DSA are functioning to any other learning institution or indeed compare Webactivate to the standard definition of how an academic course should be administered based upon funding amounts, staff & institutional capabilities it is very evident that there is a huge shortfall in what there is potential to offer and what is actually being offered with this course.

Why should this company receive funding for a scheme that could be such an asset for learning but are in actual fact getting away with displaying a lack of respect for the system and the students participating. The sheer number of posts on online forums highlighting this is proof enough that there is a major problem.

Here is a run-down of what actually happens on the Webactivate course as witnessed by actual students;

a) What DSA advertize in bold print on their website and on the Springboard Website, online ads etc. is not what is provided when actually participating in the course

b) There are guidelines for entry to the course that are very obviously flouted in order to boost the number of students they sign-up for the course

c) Social Welfare have told a significant number of students they were eligible and then recanted this at will once they had been through a long process of aptitude tests etc.

d) Social Welfare have also told a number of people that they have no knowledge of said course even though they encourage people to apply i.e. the system is fragmented, non-cohesive and obstructive at best. Also the work experience component is listed in the course structure and no payment is received by the students, however social welfare offices in all regions have indiscriminately cut students payments citing "work experience" as the reason.

e) From day 1 students are rounded up and given very public assertions about the high-quality of the course and the wide range of opportunities available upon completion. Designated schedules & core structural elements outlined for the course are changed/omitted or blatantly miscommunicated at will. These are changed for sheer convenience to management with no due notice or regard for students, commute times, distances etc.

f) The lectures are for the most part videos filmed in 2010 and rolled out in centres across Ireland, very advantageous if you wish to pay a lecturer only one year and then add extra course centres and increase student no.s without DSA incurring a proportional cost for doing so. Other institutions provide an interactive lecture whereby students have their lecturer in the room with them or in the building should they need assistance with anything which all students inevitably do. The lecture is then made available online for further reference (or public consumption in some cases). The argument that it would be impossible to have the funds to administer the course the standard way is defunct, if it is by design distance learning then classify it as distance learning.

g) The course admits people with no experience in programming and people with plenty, however the lectures are in no way tailored to reflect this. Lectures, practicals and activities are more redolent of pushing students through no matter what rather than illustrating any thought or design in how a course with significant no's of students from a wide variety of backgrounds should actually be administered to ensure the learning environment is as efficient and nurturing as it could be.

h)The internal information system i.e. Moodle is openly touted to be a vehicle by which a "student with diverse backgrounds and skills can share knowledge and boost each others' learning" is a design mess. Students must use it to access vital information about scheduling. The irony being that they have to root through vast amounts of links and useless info to access this information.
What it has become is a forum through which students (justifiably) vent their frustrations but end up slagging each other off over whether the course is run properly or not.

I) Formal student complaints are met with sheer belligerance from management who readily practice fob-offs & lies and claim complaints are in low numbers or in isolation and that said complainant is misguided in their thinking. One common excuse that is used is that the person in charge has changed or the person who fields the complaint is unsure of who is ultimately culpable for course failings or in instigation constructive change. They put more energy into misleading students and dealing with the resulting fallout, than just delivering a quality course. This basically serves to strip any confidence a student may initially have in management and administration and deter students from attempting any sort of constructive dialogue with the course provider.

J) Students complete web-design tasks for companies an Eircom agent has enlisted for a "free" website and this is supposed to be the practical component for project management, web programming etc. What actually occurs is that the client hasn't been briefed properly, the Eircom system touted as being a quick-design tailored site for generating websites has intentional flaws..the goal being that the client can pay for Eircom technical staff to 'upgrade' their website.

k) Student dropout numbers are unnaturally high, also they are consistent as the months pass. This speaks volumes in itself. Management attempted at the beginning to insinuate that this was due individual students failings at longevity or committing or that they plainly misinterpreted the failings of the course. Responsibility for maintaining structure in day-to-day activities and project groups is pushed onto the students and masking the lack of any discerning structural academic design. Problems that occur due to the failings of the course design are blamed on students being apathetic or unwilling to participate when it is very obvious there are many talented and enthusiastic students only too willing to put 100% in. The inherent failings of the course lump an extra layer of tension and stress onto students that needn't be present at all.

Any one of these points could be taken in isolation and explained away but when every component of a course is systematically and consistently being revealed to have problems on a wide scale, it's very obvious what the problem is and it definitely does not lie with the students and their perceptions in this case

100% agree. By the way I said that i quit the course clearly outlining the reason : that it is not what it is supposed to be and that I am not happy with it. Guess what? The reply was that they are sorry to hear that, and did not even bother to ask me what exactly went wrong. So it proves the point one more time- they are not interested in learning and improving.

Maybe I have low expectations or something but I am quite enjoying the course. Sure it is not perfect but the problems aren't that major to me. Maybe we are lucky that our TA's are very helpful and I feel we are learning what we should.

Some of the modules are a bit of a waste of time I think but that's life.

I for one am glad I have done the course and hope to go onto further courses with DSA.

I think pretty much everyone in Monaghan passed. Well haven't heard of anyone failing anyway.

Your last post seems to make it sound like there were loads of failures? Which is it?

Anyway from what I was told DSA get paid for the people who get jobs or go on to further education, not pass or failure rate.

Well its easy, I believe in education is there for one to improve themselves and grow and learn, if you are curious you question why and how things work and try to learn and understand from what you get taught. My experience on that so called course was the opposite of this, it was if you ask a question you get a vague answer, if you question it you get a warning ( yes I got a nice polite heads up first time and second time I got a lovely email which repeatedly stated
"I have and some recommendations for you continuance on the course."
Now if the Lead lecturer gets sacked over asking questions about concerns we had and then a TA gets it also and the another TA leaves and I still get no answers to my questions. Here's a better example , when we got our preliminary results I noticed 2 assignments were not graded, I asked for them to be rechecked the reply i got was " don't expect your grades to change significantly" and shock horrow my final results didn't show a change, guess that's their way of getting back at me for asking questions.Well a pass is a pass, now heres a question you might want to ask DSA yourself , what qualification are we getting from them? I asked and was informed
"As you may notice though, this would be contingent on completing the programme successfully and could be discussed more fully then."
And i still have been unable to get an answer even after all the phone calls from them asking me to sign a email saying I am self employed to boast their numbers for the government.

Finally I asked questions in class and on the forums and didn't hide behind anybody or anonymous names like so many on this thread do, so if you want to criticize me at least have the guts to sign off with your real name.

I came across this thread after I did a search for WebElevate. I am thinking of doing this course in Cork or Limerick and I would just like some information on it first. Even though I read the whole thread I am still none the wiser. There seems to be a lot of division on the actual value of it.
I'd just like to know things like what time did you start and finish,breaks etc., what was the content of the course, what were the lecturers like.
If anyone doesn't want to reply on the thread they can pm me.

lukin wrote: »

I came across this thread after I did a search for WebElevate. I am thinking of doing this course in Cork or Limerick and I would just like some information on it first. Even though I read the whole thread I am still none the wiser. There seems to be a lot of division on the actual value of it.
I'd just like to know things like what time did you start and finish,breaks etc., what was the content of the course, what were the lecturers like.
If anyone doesn't want to reply on the thread they can pm me.

The important question to ask yourself is what do you want to get out of the course?

In hindsight I should have taken a course what was wholly focused on programming, rather then getting bogged down with groups and industry-partner projects.

My own regret is not thinking hard enough about where I want to go after this, and will the course deliver that and will an employer rate my education.

I learned quite a bit about programming as a whole..but I didnt master any of it...

Depending on what stream you do / who your partner project is with will dictate time spent.

Is your course remote or do you attend every day?

There is a lot on offer here, working in groups, having a project to show for it at the end etc..learning the fundamentals of your stream.. but don't expect an employer to value it that much..if you already have some of this stuff behind you already..look for something with more focus..and a higher level too.. for me it was an eye opener as to what is out there...

Thanks for those very detailed replies, very helpful. Just on the hours per day, what was the start and finish time? I may have to drive to and from home if I do it and I am a fair distance from Cork and Limerick.
Also how many lecturers were present during the classes?

ILIKEFOOD wrote: »

Why did you do Innovate after Elevate? it's essentially the same course with a higher level award..did you take a different stream? Or have a killer idea in you? Thought about it myself but didn't think it was worth it..

Because I wanted the honours degree and it is a lot of the same stuff again so an easy way to get my level 8. Plus I do have a few killer ideas and probably will develop one of them as our industry project.

I was doing marketing with a side of project management the last time, now I am doing project management with a side of marketing so it balances out nicely.

Hi poster!

I am currently in semester 2 of webinnovate and can hopefully give you a little insight into it.

1. The course is now offered as a distance course....Do you think this will impact upon the collaborative nature of the course?
Yes and no is the honest answer. The actual learning at a distance is no problem at all and I find it actually suits me as I have a busy life and can shoe horn lectures in around the stuff going on in my day to day. From a collaborative perspective it is not ideal but you do learn to do group work remotely using skype/hangouts/viber etc and as you are in the college one day a week, you have an opportunity to meet with team members and get work done then. In the first semester this is a little more problematic as you are in college on a certain day in accordance with your stream. This makes inter stream projects/assignments a little more challenging and you have to adapt and learn to work efficiently when you do meet your team. From 2nd semester on you are in college on the same day as your team so it is a very good chance to get stuff done. I think that this structure is great despite the headaches as you learn to adapt, to work remotely and to keep meetings short and to the point as you need to get so much work done in a short time you are together.

2. Do you think this course offers good employment prospects?
Ask me in September! I do think that it is a relevant qualification in a growth area with lots of opportunities but like any graduate it will be difficult to get into your dream job straight off. The college do send lots of information about job opportunities but some of them can be very poor. That said, lots of people who did the level 7 (webelevate) with me last year are in good jobs and enjoying them.

3. Which stream would you recommend someone to take (if they had prior experience in all areas)?
This entirely depends on where you would like to go with your qualification. I am doing Project Management mainly because I do not have enough experience from design or development to go in that direction. Speaking to those doing development and anyone who has no experience in it before were definitely struggling for the first semester as it seems to have the steepest learning curve. That said, they pulled through and managed to design a functional website using bootstrap when we needed it for our assignment and seem to have gotten to grips with it all now. For the design stream I know that they are blessed with a talented and perfectionist of a lecturer, Alan Dargan. Alan marks tough and pushes you to achieve your best so while it is tough going those who have studied under him before are very grateful for how much they have learned.

Project Management is pretty boring if you are not into that kinda thing. There are a lot of artifacts/documents/specs to be done as part of the course so it can be quite a slog. Only do it if you really feel it is where you belong or it will grind you down. (speaking from experience here!)

Overall, having completed 2 previous courses with DSA, I would say go for it. The quality of the teaching, the support you get and the learning environment are fantastic but things, like in the industry, can change rapidly and you need to be always ready for things to pivot at any moment. Keep on your toes, be ready to adapt and if you apply yourself you are onto a winner.

Good luck!

I have done a post grad in web design etc. but lost two years after my course finished. Is it worth doing the web elevate course in galway. It is web design with Wordpress and some photoshop